¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 ALL aspects of each of our selves/WORLDS cannot yet (and maybe never) be coded in utterances (sems). Some of these may be inferred eventually by future YWorlds systems. Yet, our Y-Persons could truly be awesome.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 Such a personal profile was always part of my uplift scenario, starting with with a ongoing census of relevant personal variables, to be processed as social-netwokring projects and research. This is essential for humankind making efficient use of our diversity.
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 This profile will quickly reveal aspects of our “selves” of which we were not consciously aware. Various forms of psychological “therapies” and “practices” do this today. Many persons, as they are today, won’t be able to comprehend themselves, so revealed.
¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 I speculate that individuals and teams will probably not engage much, themselves, with their personal profiles. Primarily because it will take special competencies to do so that most people won’t have or can’t devote the time to learn. Each can learn some novice competencies, but the “reesee” of the system requires a “seafnet.”
¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 This seafnet would be a specific domain of functionalities and roles taken by a subset of the whole population. Taking off from Zuboff”s THE SUPPORT ECONOMY, seafnet would have two basic domains. ONE – The network of all personal profiles (including needs and resources of everyone) operated by persons skilled in working with such systems. TWO, small teams that personally engage individuals and teams (and their personal profiles) to assist them optimally using this system. These “contact teams” seek matches between needs and resources with the assist of domain ONE. Zuboff imagined the seafnet (my terminology) “employing” a large portion of the human population in the future. Zuboff got no traction on her proposal.
¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 Will this be ALIVE? In what sense is the life-nature of biological cells different from the life-nature of multi-celled organisms, and these different from the life-nature viable communities/tribes? Athough Miiler attempts to define Living Systems as holons, there was a lif-nature to cells when there were only cells. What is the nature of the “consciousness” of each of our cells, or of a tribe? Have you ever speculated on communication with our cells – a bigger challenge than communicating with extra-terrestrial aliens.
¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 In analogy, a seafnet can be viewed as an enzymatic system for human creative/productive/organizing/learning processes. In analogy, I see human persons as uniquely folded proteins, coupling and uncoupling. In this, the biological cell is analog for a new type of human community/tribe (involving both geographic and online proximities). Biological enzymes are a special type of protein that speeds up, and even makes possible, protein-protein reactions. IMHO a functioning seafnet is essential for the ongoing emergence to mature in the time we have in facing our Crises-of-Crises. [Do we Y-World participants not need our own seafnet, now?]
¶ 10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0 I can “imagine” persons competent to function within their enhanced Y-Person significantly different from whomwe are today. But contemporary biological time processes result in an enormous gap between what we can each do in an hour/year and what might potentially be done. There are “reports” of persons (e.g. A. Huxley) experiencing/doing much (in their minds) when only a short duration had expired – but not yet scientifically validated (we have the reports, but what do they mean?).
¶ 11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0 My crude view of the multi-millennial future of Humanity sees a separation of our inner & personally interactive lives from our integrated participation in the holarchy of Humanity. From the perspective of a future emergent Humanity, we will be as we now view our biological cells. This would actually free persons and teams to pursue their “spiritual” and artistic creative “natures”. Yet, persons may still be essential for the continued existence of Humanity and may continue to collectively play important roles in the longer term emergence of Humanity. [I can argue that wetware is fundamentally different from dryware.]